Ontario Child Protection Tools Manual
February 2007
Ministry of Children and Youth Services
A Companion to the
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
Number Number
Introduction to the Manual
3
Ontario Child Protection Required Tools
1
Safety Assessment Instructions
5
Safety Threat Descriptors
9
Safety Intervention Descriptors
16
Safety Assessment Required Tool
19
2
Family Risk Assessment Instructions
23
Neglect Index
25
Abuse Index
30
Family Risk Assessment Tool
34
3
Family and Child Strengths and Needs Assessment Instructions
37
Parent/Caregiver Strength and Needs Descriptors
40
Child Strength and Needs Descriptors
46
Family and Child Strengths and Needs Assessment Tool
50
4
Family Risk Reassessment Tools Instructions
55
Family Risk Reassessment Descriptors
57
Family Risk Reassessment Tool
61
5
Reunification Assessment Tools Instructions
63
Reunification Risk Assessment
65
Access Evaluation
67
Reunification Safety Assessment
68
Placement/Permanency Planning Guide
75
Reunification Reassessment Tools
76
Reunification Risk Reassessment
76
Access Evaluation
78
Reunification Safety Assessment
80
Placement/Permanency Planning Guide
83
Table of Contents Page 2
Ontario Supplementary Screening Tools
Introduction to Supplementary Tools
85
6
Child Emotional Wellbeing Screen: Strength and Difficulties –
Questionnaire Instructions
87
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
89
Parent/Caregiver or Teacher of Child 3-4
89
Parent/Caregiver or Teacher of Child 4-10
91
Parent/Caregiver or Teacher of Child 11-16
93
Self, age 11-16
95
Scoring
97
7
Adult Alcohol Use: Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-10
(AUDIT-10) Instructions
103
Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-10 (AUDIT-10): Tool
107
Interview Version
107
Self-Report Version
109
8
Adult Drug Use: Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10): Instructions
111
Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10): Tool
113
9
Adult Emotional Wellbeing: Mental Health Inventory-5 (MHI-5):
Instructions
115
Mental Health Inventory-5 (MHI-5): Tool
118
10
Family Support Scale: Instructions
119
ONTARIO CHILD PROTECTION TOOLS MANUAL
INTRODUCTION
The Ontario Child Protection Tools Manual provides a set of required and supplementary instruments designed to assist Ontario child protection workers in their assessment and screening of situations in which a child is alleged to be in need of protection. The Ontario child protection tools are supports to decision making that help the child protection worker review each child protection decision point in an objective, systematic, strength-based, comprehensive manner. The outcome of the instruments, combined with sound clinical judgment, including culturally sensitive practice where appropriate, strengthens child safety and assessment.
The Ontario Child Protection Tools Manual is a companion to the Child Protection Standards in Ontario. The standards set out the level of performance that is expected at each step in the protection
investigation, intervention and provision of ongoing services. The standards guide child protection work in the province.
The Ontario Child Protection Decision-Making Model
The Ontario Child Protection Decision-Making model is a systematic approach to decision-making within child protection that is based on the Structured Decision-Making™ (SDM) model developed by the Children’s Research Centre in Wisconsin. Since 1989, the Children’s Research Centre has been
conducting research into and developing instruments to improve safety, decision-making and outcomes for children receiving child protection services. It has employed a research-based process that relies on actuarial risk assessment to identify the likelihood of future harm, and clinical assessment to ascertain the strengths and needs of children and their families. The resulting model has been adopted in several American jurisdictions as well as in Northern Australia. SDM and the Ontario Child Protection Decision-Making Model based on SDM, provide specific tools to support each decision critical to child protection.
Use of the Ontario Child Protection Decision-Making Model promotes consistency among child protection workers and agencies across the province by providing a framework to ensure consideration of
standardized assessment criteria known to have statistical relevance to particular outcomes. The use of common criteria in turn ensures a common data baseline, which allows meaningful data collection and research, and improves accountability measures.
Ontario Child Protection Required Tools
In this manual are the Ontario Child Protection Required Tools for the assessment and analysis of all Ontario family-based child protection cases. The Ontario Child Protection Required Tools are based on the instruments developed by the Children’s Research Center in Wisconsin in their Structured Decision-Making Model. These instruments were validated in their home jurisdiction of California. Ontario then undertook an extensive review process to modify the instruments to make them relevant to the Ontario context.
An “Ontario tool test drive” was conducted by the Bell Canada Child Welfare Research Center, Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto in the fall of 2005. This test involved review of the instruments by 95 front-line child protection workers and supervisors across the province. The test resulted in a wide range of feedback that was considered for incorporation into the Ontario documents. The Ontario Child Protection Required Tools were also reviewed in draft form by a focus group of Ontario service
directors, and a consultation was held with representatives of the Aboriginal community. Throughout the process, care was taken to preserve the constructs essential to the validity and reliability of the actuarial tools, and a commitment has been made to evaluate their effectiveness.
The Ontario Child Protection Required Tools, designed to support specific decision points in child protection work, are as follows:
Page 4
2. Ontario Family Risk Assessment
3. Ontario Family and Child Strength and Needs Assessment
4. Reassessment Tools: Ontario Family Risk Reassessment or Ontario Reunification Package The Eligibility Spectrum (Revised October 2006) developed by the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies continues to guide decisions about eligibility for child welfare services.
Ontario Supplementary Screening Tools
The Ontario Child Protection Required Tools are enhanced by the Ontario Supplementary Screening Tools, which are also included in this manual. The Ontario Supplementary Tools are screening instruments that are well researched and effective tools designed to assist Ontario child protection workers in their accurate identification of parents/caregivers and children in the community who may be experiencing difficulty in a particular life area. The four tools provided are approved by the Ministry to screen the following areas:
• child emotional wellbeing
• adult substance abuse
• adult alcohol abuse
• adult emotional wellbeing
A fifth instrument, the Family Support Scale, has been included as an information-gathering clinical guide used to explore resources available to families.
Manual Format
In the pages that follow, the Ontario Child Protection Tools Manual provides a description of each of the Required and Supplementary Tools approved for use within child protection in the province. The manual guides the child protection worker’s application of the instruments and is subject to the Policies and Practices described in the Child Protection Standards in Ontario.
The objectives of the manual are:
• to identify the purpose of each Required or Supplementary tool and the decision that it supports within the Ontario child protection model
• to discuss the application of each tool
• to identify the person/position responsible for using the tool
• to provide an explanation of each tool including discussion of the format
• to provide definitions of the terms used in each tool
Note: Inclusive Terms
In this manual,
• the word “child” also means “children”, if there is more than one child to be considered
• the term “parent/caregiver” also includes parents or caregivers
• the term “parent/guardian” also includes parents or guardians
ONTARIO SAFETY ASSESSMENT
Purpose Safety Assessment is the process used to determine the level of immediate danger to a child. It considers the immediate threat of harm and the seriousness of the harm or danger given the current information and circumstances. Where imminent danger of harm to a child is present, the process then considers which
interventions are needed to mitigate the threat to the child. After considering the immediate safety and interventions, the process leads to a safety decision. Safety assessment differs from risk assessment in that the safety assessment assesses the present conditions, the danger resulting from those conditions and the interventions currently needed to protect the child. Risk assessment looks at the likelihood of future maltreatment due to family characteristics, behaviours and functioning.
The safety assessment process is conducted at the point of the first face-to-face contact with the child and family or at any subsequent point in the life of the case when child safety is of concern. Using the safety assessment tool as a guide, the information for each safety threat is collected from the child, caregivers and collaterals using good social work practice and engagement. Each of the safety threats is addressed at some time during the initial contact to ensure that all safety areas are assessed; however, the Ontario Safety Assessment tool is not meant to be used as a questionnaire.
The minimum expectations for a safety assessment are that:
• the child who is the victim of alleged maltreatment is interviewed or observed
• the primary caregiver is interviewed
• other children cared for in the home are seen or interviewed if there are reported threats to their safety
• the home environment is seen if there are allegations that the child’s living
conditions are hazardous.
Information from other relatives and collaterals (including the First Nation Band if the child is Aboriginal) may provide supporting information.
Application The Ontario Safety Assessment is completed for all family-based investigations at the point of the first face-to-face contact, within the response time, on new or ongoing cases that are assigned for investigation. In the Safety Assessment document, the child protection worker records:
• the assessment of safety
• the plan for securing the child’s safety
• the plan for monitoring the Safety Plan
• consultation/update with a supervisor.
The Ontario Safety Assessment must be conducted:
• before leaving a child in a home or returning a child to a home during an investigation
• when there is a change in the ability of safety interventions to mitigate safety threats.
Section 1 Ontario Safety Assessment: Instructions Page 6
Application
(continued) The safety assessment process in which changing circumstances known to induce stress have been identified (i.e. may be implemented within a family re-assessment loss of income, moves, illness of caregiver or child, a change in family
composition);
The Ontario Safety Assessment tool is not applied to:
• community caregiver investigations in non-family settings (e.g., school,
daycare, residential setting)
• fatality investigations with no surviving siblings and no other children cared for in the home
• caregivers that have abandoned the child and whose whereabouts are unknown, and/or the caregivers are refusing contact with the CAS.
Responsibility Child protection worker
Safety Assessment Form Completion
Most Vulnerable Child
The Ontario Safety Assessment form consists of three sections. In each section, the responses relate to the safety of the most vulnerable child in each domain.
Parent/Caregiver
For the purpose of the Safety Assessment, parents/caregivers are identified as being the adults, parents, or guardians in the family who provide care and supervision for the children. If any one of the caregivers poses a safety threat to the most vulnerable child, a “yes” response is indicated in relation to that safety threat and the safety intervention is targeted to address the issue and the individual.
1. Safety Threats
The safety items (Ontario Safety Assessment section 1) are a list of safety threats that are correlated to risk of immediate harm. If the critical threats are in existence, they render a child in danger of immediate harm. Use of an “other” category allows a child protection worker to identify a unique safety condition that has not been included but, in the child protection worker’s judgment, poses an immediate threat.
Safety Assessment Form Completion
(continued)
Completion of this section of the Safety Assessment is dependent on the
information available at the time of the assessment. Information gathered at the point of referral or subsequently may be factored into the assessment; however, child protection workers should make every effort to ensure that each safety threat is assessed prior to terminating the worker’s initial face to face contact with family members. Based on reasonable efforts to obtain information on each safety threat, the child protection worker reviews the threat and chooses the response that best suits the situation. “Yes” indicates the presence of the safety threat; “No” indicates the absence of the threat. In the event that no information is available to address a specific threat area, and there is no evidence to suggest that it is a concern, the child protection worker indicates “No”. If “Other” is used, the child protection worker provides a brief explanation in the allotted space.
2. Safety Interventions
Safety Interventions are actions deemed necessary whenever one or more safety threats have been identified in section 1. The presence of safety threats requires a worker to consider which interventions are necessary to resolve the identified threat or to mitigate it sufficiently in order to allow each child to remain safely in the home while the investigation continues. The severity of the threat, the availability of the needed safety intervention, the caregiver’s willingness and ability to work towards a constructive resolution, the vulnerability of the child, and the family’s history of cooperation must all be considered when assessing the potential for a successful safety-producing intervention.
In the Safety Assessment document, the Safety Intervention list is comprised of general categories of interventions. These interventions are meant to provide temporary risk reduction during the investigative phase of service. Each category of intervention should be considered in terms of its availability, its usefulness in the situation, and the caregiver’s willingness to implement and follow through with the strategy in order to reduce the imminence and severity of the threat of harm to the child. If a category represents an intervention that will be
implemented, it is check-marked on the form.
Should the severity and imminence of the threat of harm to the child be high, and should no safety intervention be available to sufficiently mitigate the conditions, apprehension and placement in CAS is the final safety intervention available. The Safety Plan is a discussion and description of the safety interventions implemented to resolve the identified safety threats. It is written at the end of the intervention section of the Safety Assessment document entitled Safety Plan. In it, the child protection worker details:
• the contact information for each individual involved in the safety activities
• the relationship between the child, family and support persons, organizations or First Nation community if the child is Aboriginal
• the specific actions that will be taken to secure the child’s safety
• specifically what each individual will do
• how often and how long they will do it
• how the plan will be monitored and by whom
Section 1 Ontario Safety Assessment: Instructions Page 8 Safety Assessment Form Completion (continued) 3. Safety Decision
In this section of the Ontario Safety Assessment document, the child protection worker records the decision that is the outcome of the safety assessment process.
If, after consideration of the safety threats, no concerns have been identified, the child protection worker may decide that there is no likelihood of imminent harm or danger to a child in the home. The child protection worker decides that conditions are Safe.
If one or more safety threats have been identified, but protective interventions have been put in place to address those conditions and reduce the threat to the child, the child protection worker may decide that the child is Safe with Intervention.
Where the child protection worker has determined that one or more safety threats are present and there are no safety interventions available to sufficiently mitigate the threats to the child, the child protection worker must consider the child
Unsafe.
The rationale for the Safety Decision, including how the intervention plan, if needed, is expected to mitigate safety concerns or is insufficient to address the concerns, is documented in the narrative area of this section.
Ontario Safety Assessment Safety Threat Descriptors
The descriptors provided below are clarifications of the terms used in the Ontario Safety Assessment, including examples of the types of conditions that might be considered within each broader category. The descriptors are a guide to be used in conjunction with worker judgment and cultural sensitivity where appropriate, in capturing the presenting safety threats, interventions and determining a safety plan.
1. Parent/caregiver caused serious physical harm to the child, or made a plausible threat to cause serious physical harm in the current investigation indicated by:
Serious injury or abuse to child other than accidental
Serious injury, caused by parent/caregiver, refers to a range of physical injuries that includes injury requiring hospitalization, injury that is not life threatening but causes the child serious pain and may require some level of medical intervention (e.g. sutures), and injuries that are superficial but multiple in nature. Serious physical harm to the child includes brain damage, skull or bone fractures, multiple bruises, internal injuries such as through shaking, dislocations, sprains, poisoning, burns, scalds, deep wounds or punctures, or severe cuts. Serious physical harm also includes any other physical injury (e.g. suffocating, shooting, bruises/welts, bite marks, choke marks) that seriously impairs the health or wellbeing of the child, requires medical treatment, or creates concern about the health or wellbeing of the child.
Caregiver fears he/she will maltreat child
Parent/caregiver expresses fear that he/she will maltreat child due to either parent/caregiver’s own emotional state or frustration with child, and parent/caregiver requests placement.
Threat to cause harm or retaliate against child
Parent/caregiver has threatened to take an action against the child which would result in serious harm, or a family member plans to retaliate against the child for involving child protection services.
Excessive physical discipline or physical force
Parent/caregiver has used physical force or acted in a way that goes beyond reasonable discipline or has punished child beyond the child’s endurance.
Drug-exposed infant
Toxicology screening on infant or birth mother, or birth mother’s admission of substance abuse has determined that infant has been exposed to illicit drugs or
substances (including solvents) or non-prescribed medication during pregnancy; infant suffers adverse effects attributable to substance exposure; infant is medically fragile as a result of exposure to substance abuse.
Section 1 Ontario Safety Assessment: Instructions Page 10
Ontario Safety Assessment Safety Threat Descriptors (continued) 2. Current circumstance, combined
with information that the
parent/caregiver has or may have a history of previously maltreating a child in his/her care, suggest that the child’s safety may be of immediate concern.
There must be both current immediate threats to child safety and related previous maltreatment that was severe and/or represents an unresolved pattern. Previous maltreatment includes any of the following:
• prior death of a child as a result of maltreatment;
• prior serious maltreatment of child by caregiver that caused serious injury and/or medical/physical findings consistent with sexual abuse based on medical exam
• termination of parental rights (i.e. Crown wardship for the purposes of adoption) as a result of a previous child protection involvement
• prior placement of children in place of safety or with an alternate caregiver by a Children’s Aid Society due to presence of safety threats
• prior child welfare involvement that resulted in verification of child maltreatment
• prior child protection involvement that resulted in an
inconclusive finding in relation to allegations of child maltreatment. Factors to be considered include seriousness, chronicity and/or patterns of child protection allegations
• prior parental/caregiver behaviour that could have
caused serious injury; retaliation or threatened retaliation against child for previous incidents
• prior partner/adult conflict that resulted in serious harm or threatened harm to a child
• prior failure to successfully complete either court-ordered or voluntary services to address child protection concerns.
3. Child sexual abuse is suspected and circumstances suggest that child’s safety may be of immediate concern.
• Child discloses sexual abuse either verbally or behaviourally (e.g. age inappropriate, sexualized behaviour towards self or others).
• Medical findings are consistent with child sexual abuse.
• Parent/caregiver or others in the home have been investigated or convicted of a sexual offence against child or has had other sexual contact with child.
• Parent/caregiver or others in the home have forced or encouraged child to engage in sexual performances or activities, including forcing child to observe sexual performance or activities.
• There is access to a child by possible or confirmed sexual abuse offender.
Ontario Safety Assessment Safety Threat Descriptors (continued) 4. Parent/caregiver fails to protect
child from serious harm or
threatened harm by other adults or children in the home. This may include physical, emotional or sexual abuse or neglect.
• Parent/caregiver fails to protect child from serious harm or threatened harm due to physical, sexual or emotional abuse or neglect by other family members, others in the home or others having access to the child.
• Parent/caregiver does not provide supervision necessary to protect child from potentially serious harm by others, given the child’s age or
developmental stage.
• An individual with a known history of
violence/criminal behaviour resides in the home or parent/caregiver allows person access to the child. 5. Parent/caregiver’s explanation for
the injury to the child is
questionable or inconsistent with type of injury, and the nature of the injury suggests that the child’s safety may be of imminent concern.
• The injury requires medical attention.
• Medical evaluation indicates injury is non-accidental
or is a result of abuse; parent denies or attributes injury to accidental causes.
• Parent/caregiver’s explanation for the injury is inconsistent with the type of injury.
• Parent/caregiver’s description of the injury or cause of injury minimizes the extent of harm to the child.
• Factors to consider include age of child, location of
injury, exceptional needs of child or chronicity of injuries.
6. The family refuses access to the child or there is reason to believe that the family is about to flee.
• Family currently refuses access to the child or cannot or will not provide child’s location.
• Family has removed child from a hospital against medical advice to avoid investigation.
• Family has previously fled in response to child protection involvement or has a pattern of abruptly leaving jurisdictions in response to child protection involvement.
• Family has a history of isolating child from peers, school, professionals and others for extended periods of time for the purpose of avoiding investigation.
• Parent/caregiver intentionally coaches or coerces child, or allows others to coach or coerce, in an effort to hinder the investigation.
Section 1 Ontario Safety Assessment: Instructions Page 12
Ontario Safety Assessment Safety Threat Descriptors (continued) 7. Parent/caregiver does not meet the
child’s immediate needs for
supervision, food, clothing, medical, dental or mental health care.
• Minimal nutritional needs of the child are not met resulting in danger to the child’s health and/or safety.
• Child is without minimally warm clothing in cold months.
• Parent/caregiver does not seek treatment for the child’s immediate, chronic and/or dangerous medical condition or does not follow prescribed treatment.
• Child appears malnourished.
• Child has exceptional needs, such as being medically fragile, which caregiver does not or cannot meet.
• Child is suicidal and parent will not/cannot take protective action.
• Child demonstrates effects of maltreatment, such as serious emotional symptoms (e.g. anxiety,
depression, self-destructive or aggressive behaviour or delayed development), or serious physical symptoms.
• Parent/caregiver does not attend to child so that the child’s need for care goes unnoticed or unmet (e.g. caregiver is present but child can wander alone, play with dangerous object, or is exposed to threatening conditions).
• Parent/caregiver does not meet child’s need for adequate, age-appropriate supervision.
• Parent/caregiver is unavailable (e.g. incarcerated, hospitalized, or whereabouts unknown; or has abandoned the child.)
• Parent/caregiver makes inadequate and/or inappropriate child care arrangements, or
Ontario Safety Assessment Safety Threat Descriptors (continued) 8. The physical living conditions are
hazardous and immediately threatening to the health and/or safety of the child.
Based on the child’s age and developmental status, the child’s living conditions are hazardous and pose an immediate threat. Examples of the observed conditions may include:
• leaking gas from stove or heating unit
• substances accessible to the child that may endanger the health or safety of the child (such as drugs, solvents, alcohol, toxic substances)
• living/sleeping arrangements that threaten immediate safety of an infant (e.g. adult sharing a bed with an infant or an unsafe crib)
• lack of water or utilities (heat, plumbing, electricity)
and no safe alternative provisions (if the community as a whole does not have the above resources
available, indicate in the space provided and identify in the Intervention section the steps that will be taken to address any immediate threat to the child)
• open windows; broken or missing screens
• exposed electrical wiring
• excessive garbage, rotten or spoiled food or excessive mould that threatens health (if the community as a whole has housing issues that include mould, identify the steps that will be taken to address any immediate threat to the child)
• serious illness or significant injury that has resulted from the living conditions, and these conditions still exist
• evidence of human or animal waste throughout living quarters
• guns and other weapons that are not appropriately secured
• other objects that pose a safety hazard and are accessible to child.
9. Parent/caregiver’s current alcohol, drug or substance abuse seriously impairs his/her ability to supervise, protect, or care for the child.
• Parent/caregiver has abused legal or illegal substances or alcohol to the extent that his/her ability to parent is significantly impaired.
• The parent/caregiver is unable or will likely be unable to care for the child, has harmed or allowed harm to the child, or is likely to harm or allow harm to the child.
Section 1 Ontario Safety Assessment: Instructions Page 14
Ontario Safety Assessment Safety Threat Descriptors (continued) 10. Partner/adult conflict exists in the
home and poses a risk of serious physical and/or emotional harm or neglect to the child.
• Child injured in conflict between caregivers or between caregiver and another adult or is at risk of physical harm.
• Child has suffered or is at risk of suffering emotional harm as demonstrated by serious anxiety (e.g. nightmares, insomnia) aggressive behaviour, self- destructive behaviour, delayed development or withdrawal related to situations associated with exposure to partner/adult conflict.
• Child demonstrates signs of fear (e.g. cries, cowers, cringes, trembles) as a result of exposure to
partner/adult conflict in the home.
• Child’s behaviour increases risk of physical injury
(e.g. attempting to intervene or participate during violent dispute).
• Adults use weapons or other instruments in a violent, threatening and/or intimidating manner.
• There is evidence of property damage resulting from partner/adult conflict.
11. Parent/caregiver describes child in predominantly negative terms or acts toward child in negative ways that result in the child being a danger to self or others, acting aggressively, or being seriously withdrawn and/or suicidal.
Parent/caregiver actions may include:
• describing child in a demeaning or degrading manner
• cursing and/or repeatedly degrading child
• scapegoating a particular child in the family
• blaming child for incidents or problems
• placing child in middle of custody dispute.
12. Parent/caregiver’s emotional stability, developmental status or cognitive limitation seriously impairs his/her current ability to supervise, protect or care for child.
• Parent/caregiver’s refusal to follow prescribed
medication/treatment impedes ability to adequately parent the child.
• Parent/caregiver’s inability to control emotions impedes ability to adequately parent child.
• Parent/caregiver acts out or exhibits distorted perception that impedes ability to parent child.
• Parent/caregiver’s inability to function or perform tasks of daily living impedes parenting.
• Parent/caregiver expects child to perform or act in ways that are unrealistic for child’s age/stage of development (e.g. young child expected not to cry, young child expected to sit still for extended periods).
Parent/caregiver’s developmental delay impedes ability to carry out basic parenting responsibilities or have basic parenting knowledge (e.g. failure/inability to access basic emergency medical care, lack of knowledge of basic child needs including nutrition, supervision, feeding schedules for infants).
Ontario Safety Assessment Safety Threat Descriptors (continued) 13. Child is fearful of parent/
caregiver, other family members or other people living in or having access to the home.
Child demonstrates or expresses fear of
parent/caregiver, other family members or other people residing in or with access to the home. Child may or may not have described fears to a non-offending
parent/caregiver.
14. Other Identify any other safety factor that has not been addressed above but is assessed as posing an immediate threat to the safety of the child.
Section 1 Ontario Safety Assessment: Instructions Page 16
Safety Intervention Descriptors
Safety Interventions are those actions taken to mitigate any safety threat that has been identified during the course of the information-gathering used to assess the immediate safety of a child. The purpose of a Safety Intervention is to address concerns that pose a serious and imminent threat, not to present a long-term solution. Interventions are grouped into general categories as listed below. At times, more than one intervention may be put in place to address presenting threats.
Implementation of one or more Safety Interventions results in a Safety Plan. 1. Direct service intervention by child
protection worker Immediate actions taken or planned by the investigating child protection worker to specifically address one or more safety threats are direct service interventions. Examples include provision of information about alternate disciplinary techniques or child development; assistance to attain restraining orders; provision of emergency material aid; planned return visits to the home to check on progress; and education regarding child protection laws or community standards. The investigation itself does not constitute a direct service intervention.
2. Use of extended family, neighbours, community, Elders, or other
individuals in the community as safety resources
Families often have support systems that can be mobilized to mitigate safety concerns. Exploration of the family’s strengths during the safety assessment leads to identification of family’s resources which may be used to address safety threats. Interventions include involving extended family members, neighbours or other individuals to address immediate threats to child. Examples include a family’s agreement to use non-violent means of discipline, engaging a grandparent to assist with childcare, engagement of a community Elder or a neighbour’s agreement to act as a safety net for an older child or to provide supervision.
3. Use of community agencies, Band Representatives or services as safety resources
Community, First Nation Band, or Faith based
organizations become involved in activities to mitigate safety threats. Examples include use of a local food bank, friendly visiting program, Elder visit or a
community service. Long term therapy, treatment and waitlists are not considered safety interventions because these do not create immediate change.
Safety Intervention Descriptors (continued) 4. Parent/caregiver to appropriately
protect victim from the alleged perpetrator
A non-offending parent/caregiver acknowledges the safety issues, is willing and able to protect child from the alleged perpetrator, and agrees to take immediate action to ensure the child’s safety. Examples include an agreement that child will not be left in the care of the alleged perpetrator, or non-offending parent/caregiver agrees to assume all parenting responsibility to
safeguard child. 5. Alleged perpetrator to leave the
home, either voluntarily or in response to consideration of legal intervention
Alleged perpetrator agrees to leave the home, is forced to leave the home by the non-offending caregiver, or is removed from the home because of legal constraints (e.g. criminal charges, Band Council Resolution, restraining order).
6. Non-offending parent/caregiver to move to a safe environment with the child
A non-offending parent/caregiver moves with the child to a safe environment (e.g. shelter, Band safe house, hotel, home of extended friends or family) where there will be no access to the alleged perpetrator.
7. Legal intervention planned or
initiated, child remains in the home A legal action has commenced or will be commenced that will effectively mitigate identified safety threats. Legal action may be family-initiated (such as restraining orders, mental health committals, or a change in custody/access), or through an application under the Child and Family Services Act.
8. Other The family or child protection worker has identified a unique intervention for an identified safety concern that does not fit in the categories above.
9. Parent/caregiver to voluntarily place
the child outside the home A voluntary agreement is developed between the parent/caregiver and Society to have the child reside in the care of a member of the child’s extended family or community in accordance with the Out of Care Kin Placement Regulation (e.g. kinship service, placement out of care); a Temporary Care Agreement is signed between the caregiver and the Society to place the child in the care of the Society.
Section 1 Ontario Safety Assessment: Instructions Page 18
Safety Intervention Descriptors (continued) 10. Child apprehended and placed in
CAS care because interventions 1-9 do not adequately assure child’s safety
One or more children are apprehended and placed in care of the Society pursuant to the Child and Family Services Act, and will be brought before the courts because no other option is available that adequately assures the child’s safety.
ONTARIO SAFETY ASSESSMENT
Agency:
Family Name:
Cross Reference: Address:
Does address of safety assessment differ from address of family home? Yes _____ No _____ If Yes, please provide assessment address:
Names of Parents/Caregivers Assessed & Relationship to child:
1. _______________________________________ 3. ______________________________________ 2. _______________________________________ 4. ______________________________________
Names of Children and Birthdates:
1.____________________________________________________________________ DOB __/____/_____
Surname(s) Given Names Day/Month/Year
2. ____________________________________________________________________ DOB __/____/_____
Surname(s) Given Names Day/Month/Year
3. ____________________________________________________________________ DOB __/____/_____
Surname(s) Given Names Day/Month/Year
4. ____________________________________________________________________ DOB __/____/_____
Surname(s) Given Names Day/Month/Year
5. ____________________________________________________________________ DOB __/____/_____
Surname(s) Given Names Day/Month/Year
6. ____________________________________________________________________ DOB __/____/_____
Surname(s) Given Names Day/Month/Year
(If more than six children are assessed, add additional names and numbers on reverse side.)
Are there additional names on the reverse? 1. Yes 2. No
Date of Child Protection Referral: ____/_____/_____ Date of Safety Assessment: _____/_____/____ Day Month Year Day Month Year
Date of Consultation: ____/_____/____ Reason for Eligibility: ________________________________ Day Month Year
Section 1 Ontario Safety Assessment: Tool Page 20
SECTION 1: SAFETY THREATS
Assess family home for each of the following safety threats. Indicate whether currently available information results in reason to believe a safety threat is present.
Yes No 1. Parent/caregiver caused serious physical harm to the child, or made a plausible threat to cause serious physical harm in the current investigation indicated by:
_____ Serious injury or abuse to child other than accidental _____ Caregiver fears he/she will maltreat child
_____ Threat to cause harm or retaliate against child _____ Excessive discipline or physical force
_____ Drug-exposed infant.
Yes No 2. Current circumstance, combined with information that the parent/caregiver has or may have a history of previously maltreating a child in his/her care, suggests that the child’s safety may be of immediate concern.
Yes No 3. Child sexual abuse is suspected and circumstances suggest that child’s safety may be of immediate concern.
Yes No 4. Parent/caregiver fails to protect child from serious harm or threatened harm by other adults or children in the home. This may include physical, emotional or sexual abuse or neglect.
Yes No 5. Parent/caregiver’s explanation for the injury to the child is questionable or inconsistent with type of injury, and the nature of the injury suggests that the child’s safety may be of imminent concern.
Yes No 6. The family refuses access to the child or there is reason to believe that the family is about to flee.
Yes No 7. Parent/caregiver does not meet the child’s immediate needs for supervision, food, clothing, medical, dental or mental health care.
Yes No 8. The physical living conditions are hazardous and immediately threatening to the health and/ or safety of the child. Note: If the community as a whole does not have the above resources, indicate here: ____. When identifying safety interventions, indicate how any immediate threat will be addressed.
Yes No 9. Parent/caregiver’s current alcohol, drug or substance abuse seriously impairs his/her ability to supervise, protect or care for the child.
Yes No 10. Partner/adult conflict exists in the home and poses a risk of serious physical and/or emotional harm or neglect to the child.
Yes No 11. Parent/caregiver describes child in predominantly negative terms or acts toward child in negative ways that result in the child being a danger to self or others, acting out
aggressively, or being seriously withdrawn and/or suicidal.
Yes No 12. Parent/caregiver’s emotional stability, developmental status, or cognitive limitation seriously impairs his/her current ability to supervise, protect, or care for the child. Yes No 13. Child is fearful of parent/caregiver, other family members or other people living in or
having access to the home. Yes No 14. Other (specify):
SECTION 2: SAFETY INTERVENTIONS
If no safety threats are present, skip to Section 3. If one or more safety threats are present, consider whether safety interventions 1 – 8 will allow child to remain in the home for the present time. Check the item number for all safety interventions that will be implemented. If there are no available safety interventions that would allow the child to remain in the home, indicate by checking item nine or ten, and follow procedures for initiating a voluntary agreement for placement with kin or a Temporary Care Agreement or taking child into court directed CAS care.
Check all that apply:
_________ 1. Direct service intervention by child protection worker.
_________ 2. Use of extended family, neighbours, community Elders, or other individuals in the community as safety resources.
_________ 3. Use of community agencies, Band Representatives or services as safety resources. _________ 4. Parent/caregiver to appropriately protect victim from the alleged perpetrator. _________ 5. Alleged perpetrator to leave the home, either voluntarily or in response to
consideration of legal intervention.
_________ 6. Non-offending parent/caregiver to move to a safe environment with the child. _________ 7. Legal intervention planned or initiated – child remains in the home.
_________ 8. Other (specify) _____________________________________________________________ _________ 9. Parent/caregiver to voluntarily place the child outside the home.
_________ 10. Child apprehended and placed in CAS care because interventions 1-9 do not adequately assure child’s safety.
SAFETY INTERVENTION PLAN
Provide a brief description of intervention, detailing relationship of support persons to child including names, contact information, frequency and duration of supports and how the safety intervention plan will be monitored.
Section 1 Ontario Safety Assessment: Tool Page 22
SECTION 3: SAFETY DECISION
Identify the safety decision by checking the appropriate line below. The decision should be based on the assessment of all safety threats, safety interventions, and any other information known about the case. Check one line only.
_________ 1. Safe. No safety threats are identified at this time. Based on currently available information, there are no children likely to be in immediate danger of serious harm. _________ 2. Safe with Intervention. One or more safety threats are present, and protecting safety
interventions have been planned or taken that immediately mitigate the identified safety threats. Based on protecting interventions, child will remain in the home at this time.
_________ 3. Unsafe. One or more safety threats are present and placement is the only protecting intervention possible for one or more children. Without placement, one or more children will likely be in danger of immediate or serious harm.
_____ All children placed.
_____ The following children were placed: (enter name and date of birth from page 1) ______________ ______________ ______________
______________ ______________ ______________
NARRATIVE
Provide rationale for the Safety Decision including how the intervention plan, if needed, is expected to mitigate safety concerns or is insufficient to address concerns.
Worker____________________________ Date Completed _____/______/________
ONTARIO FAMILY RISK ASSESSMENT
Purpose Risk Assessment is the process by which a child protection worker determines the likelihood of future child maltreatment within a family setting. This process begins at the point of first contact when the child protection worker starts to collect information about a family, and it continues throughout the investigative period. It involves the use of clinical skills to engage the client and elicit the needed details, relies on worker judgment to analyze the data collected from collaterals and previous child welfare history, and it uses the Ontario Family Risk Assessment tool to organize the information according to constructs that identify families which have low, moderate, high or very high probability of future abuse or neglect relative to other families.
Risk assessment results in a forward-looking evaluation that considers factors that are known to contribute to risk of child maltreatment. It attempts to determine whether harm will likely continue or reoccur. The Ontario Family Risk Assessment is an actuarial (statistically driven) instrument in which collected information is organized along two indices: Abuse and Neglect. Using empirical probabilities, this Risk Assessment then identifies those families whose characteristics place them at a higher likelihood of future child maltreatment than other families. High risk families have significantly higher rates of subsequent referral and verification than low risk families. Correct use of the provided descriptors and scoring is essential to maintain the validity of the instrument.
The Ontario Family Risk Assessment is completed for each child protection investigation, to assist the child protection worker’s decision-making regarding the need for further service to the family based on the likelihood that
maltreatment will reoccur
Application The Ontario Family Risk Assessment is conducted as a part of each family-based investigation including out-of-home care by relatives, community members, customary care arrangements or a foster home, prior to the verification decision. The Ontario Family Risk Assessment is not applied to:
• community caregiver investigations in non-family settings (e.g., school, daycare, residential setting)
• fatality investigations with no surviving siblings and no other children cared for in the home
• parent/caregivers who have abandoned the child and whose whereabouts are unknown and/or they are refusing contact with the CAS
• cases that, following a safety assessment, meet the criteria for being closed directly or being discontinued.
When the Risk Assessment tool has not been completed for any of the above reasons and the circumstances creating the exemption change (e.g.
parent/caregiver returns, or new information requires that an investigation continue), the Ontario Family Risk Assessment is completed at the time of the change.
Section 2 Ontario Family Risk Assessment: Instructions Page 24
Responsibility Child protection worker
Risk
Assessment Form Completion
The Ontario Family Risk Assessment is an actuarial tool comprised of two indices: a Neglect Index and an Abuse Index. Each scale incorporates a range of family characteristics that capture dynamics associated with either abuse or neglect. During the course of the investigation, the child protection worker collects information from all possible sources to apply the information to the Ontario Family Risk Assessment. Some items in either scale are objective while others require the child protection worker to make an observation and judgment based on assessment. Throughout the risk assessment process, the parent/caregiver descriptors provided below must be used to maintain validity of the instrument.
Neglect Index
The neglect index consists of 10 factors associated with recurrence of neglect. Each factor has been weighted to produce a valid estimation of the likelihood of recurrence. Due to the actuarial base of the tool, the assigned weights cannot be changed. The score of the most appropriate prompt is chosen and recorded in the space provided. The maximum score attainable on the neglect index is 16.
Abuse Index
The abuse index consists of 10 factors associated with recurrence of abuse. Like the neglect index, each factor has been weighted to produce a valid estimate of the likelihood of recurrence of abuse. The actuarial weighting of each factor cannot be changed. The score of the most appropriate prompt is chosen and recorded. The maximum score attainable on the abuse index is 18.
Scoring
When both indices are complete, the Total Neglect Score and the Total Abuse Score are each calculated, using simple addition. The family’s Scored Risk Level is based on the highest score on either the Neglect or the Abuse Index.
Overriding Conditions
Overriding conditions represent situations that are considered, without
exception, to be indicative of increased risk to the child. In the Ontario Family Risk Assessment, the child protection worker indicates if an overriding condition exists. Presence of one or more overriding conditions increases risk to very high.
Discretionary Considerations
Discretionary Considerations are used by the child protection worker whenever he/she believes that the risk score does not accurately reflect the family’s actual risk level. In the Ontario Family Risk Assessment, a discretionary consideration may be used by the child protection worker, based on judgment of the
circumstances, to increase the Scored Risk Level by one rating. Use of Discretionary Consideration requires supervisory approval.
Following consideration of Overriding Conditions and/or Discretionary Considerations, the Final Risk Level is determined.
Ontario Family Risk Assessment Descriptors
The descriptors provided below are clarifications of the terms used in the Ontario Family Risk Assessment, including examples of the types of conditions that might be considered within each broader category. The descriptors are a guide to be used in conjunction with worker judgment and cultural sensitivity where appropriate, in capturing the presenting risk factors.
Parent/Caregiver
Each parent/caregiver residing in the home and each child cared for in the home is included in the risk assessment. To preserve the validity of the instrument, in the Ontario Family Risk Assessment, parent/caregiver ratings are based on the primary parent/caregiver who is the adult living in the home who assumes the most responsibility for the child. In determining the primary caregiver, the child protection worker follows the criteria below:
• When two or more parents/caregivers share responsibility for the children, the adult with legal responsibility for the children is selected as the primary caregiver.
• When there are two or more parents/caregivers who share legal responsibility for the children, the parent/caregiver who is the alleged offender is selected as the primary caregiver.
• When more than one caregiver has allegedly perpetrated, the parent/caregiver with the most severe behaviour is selected as the primary caregiver.
Only one primary parent/caregiver can be identified in each Ontario Risk Assessment.
The secondary parent/caregiver is an adult, residing in the home, who has routine responsibility for child care but less responsibility than the primary caregiver.
Ontario Family Risk Assessment Descriptors Neglect Index
N1. Current Complaint is for Neglect Score 1 if the current complaint (referred allegation or information attained during the investigation) is for any type of neglect, including:
• severe or general neglect
• caregiver absence or incapacity
• non sexual exploitation
Non-sexual exploitation refers to use of a child in a labour, criminal or household context that seriously interferes with the child’s participation in
developmentally appropriate activities such as education or socialization or that places the child at
Section 2 Ontario Family Risk Assessment: Instructions Page 26
Ontario Family Risk Assessment Descriptors Neglect Index (continued)
N2. Number of Prior Child Protection
Investigations History from other jurisdictions is checked and reviewed to inform decisions in this area. Investigations of community caregivers (e.g. daycare, teacher, etc.) are excluded unless one or more parent/caregivers failed to protect.
b) Score 0 if there were no known previous child
protection investigations for the family. Referrals that did not result in an investigation (e.g. Brief Service, Report Received Not Investigated, and Community Linkages) are scored as 0.
c) Score 1 if there is a history of one or more
investigations, verified or not, for any type of physical or emotional abuse or sexual abuse or exploitation. Referrals that did not result in an investigation are not included.
d) Score 2 if there is a history of one or two
investigations, verified or not, for any type of neglect in the family.
e) Score 3 if there were three or more investigations, verified or not, for any type of neglect, with or without abuse investigations, prior to the current investigation.
Neglect includes:
• severe and general neglect
• caregiver absence or incapacity
• non-sexual exploitation
N3. Family has Previously Received CAS Ongoing Child Protection Services (voluntary/court-ordered).
Score 1 if family members have previously received child protection services or are currently receiving service as a result of a prior investigation. Previous involvement may be voluntary or court ordered.
N4. Number of Children Involved in Current Child Abuse/Neglect Incident
Score the appropriate amount given the number of children under 16 years of age for whom abuse or neglect was alleged or verified in the current
investigation (e.g. four children under 16 results in a score of 1).
N5. Age of Youngest Child in the Family Score the appropriate amount given the current age of the youngest child in the home where the maltreatment incident reportedly occurred (e.g. if youngest child is under 2, score 1). If a child is removed as a result of the current investigation, count the child as residing in the home.
Ontario Family Risk Assessment Descriptors Neglect Index (continued)
N6. Primary Parent/Caregiver Provides Physical Care Inconsistent with Child Needs
Score 1 if physical care of child (such as age-appropriate feeding, clothing, shelter, hygiene and medical care) threatens the child’s well being or results in harm to the child. Examples include:
• repeated failure to obtain standard immunizations
• failure to obtain medical care for severe or chronic illness
• repeated failure to provide child with clothing appropriate to the weather
• persistent rodent or insect infestations falling below the minimal community standard
• inadequate or inoperative plumbing or heating, where
these utilities are available in the local community
• poisonous substance or dangerous objects lying within reach of small child
• child wears unchanged clothes for extended periods of time (according to community standard)
• child not bathed on a regular basis resulting in dirt caked on skin and hair, and strong odour.
N7. Primary Parent/Caregiver has a Past or Current Mental Health Problem
Score 1 if credible and/or verifiable statements by the primary parent/caregiver or others indicate that the primary parent/caregiver:
• has been diagnosed with a DSM condition by a mental health clinician
• had repeated referrals for mental health/ psychological evaluations
• was recommended for treatment/hospitalization or was treated/hospitalized for emotional problems at any time.
Section 2 Ontario Family Risk Assessment: Instructions Page 28
Ontario Family Risk Assessment Descriptors Neglect Index (continued)
N8. Primary Parent/Caregiver has a Past or Current Alcohol, Drug or Substance Problem
The primary parent/caregiver has a past or current alcohol/drug/substance abuse problem that interferes with his/her or the family’s functioning. Such
interference is evidenced by:
• substance use that affects or affected
▫ employment
▫ criminal involvement
▫ marital or family relationships ▫ ability to provide protection,
supervision and care for the child
• an arrest in the past two years for driving under the influence or refusing breathalyser testing
• self report of a problem
• treatment received currently or in the past
• multiple positive urine toxicology tests
• health/medical problems resulting from substance use
• child diagnosed with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or Exposure, or child had positive toxicology screen at birth and primary caregiver was birthing parent. Score the following characteristics and record the sum as the item score (maximum score 2):
a) Score 0 if no past or current substance abuse problems.
b) Score 1 if past or current alcohol abuse.
c) Score 1 if past or current drug or substance abuse. Legal, non-abusive prescription drug use should not be scored.
N9. Characteristics of Children in the
Family Score the appropriate amount for each characteristic present and record the sum as the item score (maximum score 3):
a) Score 0 if no child in the family exhibits characteristics listed below.
b) Score 1 if any child in the family is medically fragile, defined as having a long-term (6 months or more) physical condition requiring medical intervention, or diagnosed as failure to thrive.
c) Score 1 if any child is developmentally or physically disabled, including any of the following:
developmental delay, learning disability, significant physical disability.
d) Score 1 if any child had a positive toxicology result for alcohol or another drug at birth.
Ontario Family Risk Assessment Descriptors Neglect Index (continued)
N10. Housing Score the appropriate amount given the characteristics present and record the item score (maximum score 2): e) Score 0 if the family has housing that is physically
safe.
f) Score 1 if the family has housing but the current housing situation is physically unsafe such that it does not meet the health or safety needs of the child and falls below the minimum community standard. Examples include exposed wiring, inoperable heat or plumbing, roach/rat infestations, human/animal waste on floors, rotting food.
g) Score 2 if the family is homeless or about to be evicted at the time the investigation began.
Section 2 Ontario Family Risk Assessment: Instructions Page 30
Ontario Family Risk Assessment Descriptors Abuse Index
A1. Current Complaint is for Abuse Score 1 if the current complaint or an allegation made during the investigation is for any type of abuse. This includes:
• physical abuse
• emotional abuse
• sexual abuse or exploitation
A2. Number of Previous Child Abuse
Investigations Score the appropriate amount given the count of all investigations, verified or not, that were assigned for child protection investigation for any type of abuse prior to the current investigation. Abuse history from other jurisdictions is checked and reviewed. Investigations of community caregivers (e.g. daycare, teacher etc.) are excluded unless a parent/caregiver failed to protect. A3. Family has Previously Received CAS
Ongoing Child Protection Services Score 1 if family has previously received ongoing child protection services or is currently receiving services as a result of a previous investigation. Service history may be voluntary or court-ordered.
A4. Prior Injury to a Child Resulting
from Child Abuse or Neglect Score 1 if a child sustained an injury resulting from abuse and/or neglect prior to the complaint which resulted in the current investigation. Injury sustained as a result of abuse or neglect may range from bruises, cuts and welts to an injury that requires medical treatment or hospitalization.
A5. Primary Parent/Caregiver’s Assess-ment of Incident
Score the appropriate amount for each characteristic and record the sum as the item score (maximum score 3):
a) Score 0 if none of the characteristics below are applicable.
b) Score 1 if the primary parent/caregiver blames child for incident. Blaming refers to parent/caregiver’s statement that maltreatment occurred because of child’s action or inaction. For example,
parent/caregiver claims that child seduced him/her or that child deserved beating because of misbehaviour. Score 2 if the primary parent/caregiver justifies
maltreatment of child. Justifying refers to
parent/caregiver’s statement that his/her actions or inaction, which resulted in harm to the child was appropriate. An example would be to claim that the form of discipline was appropriate because it is how he/she was raised.
Ontario Family Risk Assessment Descriptors Abuse Index (continued)
A6. Partner/adult Conflict in the
Family in the Past Year Score 2 if in the previous year, there has been one or more physical assaults or multiple periods of intimidation/ threats/ harassment between
parents/caregivers or between parent/caregiver and another adult.
A7. Primary Parent/Caregiver Characteristics
Score the appropriate amount for each characteristic present and record the sum as the item score (maximum score 3):
a) Score 0 if the primary parent/caregiver does not exhibit characteristics listed below.
b) Score 1 if the primary parent/caregiver provides insufficient emotional/ psychological support to the child, such as persistently berating/belittling/ demeaning child, or depriving child of affection or emotional support.
c) Score 1 if the parent/caregiver’s disciplinary practices caused or threatened harm to child because he/she was excessively harsh and/or inappropriate to the child given the child’s age and/or developmental stage. Examples include locking child in closed basement, holding child’s hand over heat, hitting child with dangerous objects or depriving young child of physical and/or social activity for extended periods.
d) Score 1 if the primary parent/caregiver’s behaviour is characterized by controlling, abusive, overly
restrictive or unfair actions, or over-reactive rules. A8. Primary Parent/Caregiver has a
History of Abuse or Neglect as a Child
Score 1 if credible statements by the primary parent/caregiver or others indicate that the primary parent/caregiver was maltreated as a child
(maltreatment includes neglect, physical, sexual or other abuse).
Section 2 Ontario Family Risk Assessment: Instructions Page 32
Ontario Family Risk Assessment Descriptors Abuse Index (continued)
A9. Secondary Parent/Caregiver has a Past or Current Alcohol, Drug or Substance Problem
The secondary parent/caregiver has a past or current alcohol/drug/substance problem that interferes with his/her or the family’s functioning. Such interference is evidenced by:
• substance use that affects or affected: ▫ employment
▫ criminal involvement
▫ marital or family relationships ▫ ability to provide protection,
supervision, and care for the child
• an arrest in the past two years for driving under the
influence or refusing breathalyser testing
• self report of a problem
• received or receiving treatment
• multiple positive toxicology screens
• health/medical problems resulting from substance use
• child diagnosed with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or effects, or child had a positive toxicology screen at birth and secondary caregiver was birthing parent. Score the following:
a) Score 0 if no past or current substance abuse problem.
b) Score 1 if past or current substance abuse.
Legal, non-abusive prescription drug use should not be scored.
Ontario Family Risk Assessment Descriptors Abuse Index (continued)
A10. Characteristics of Children in the
Family Score the appropriate amount for each characteristic present and record the sum as the item score (maximum score 3):
a) Score 0 if no child in the family exhibits characteristics listed below.
b) Score 1 if any child in the family has been referred to the Youth Criminal Justice System for an offence. Child behaviour that has not resulted in criminal involvement but has created stress within the family should also be scored. Examples include children engaging in behaviours such as truancy, breaking curfews and repeated running away.
c) Score 1 if any child is developmentally delayed, has a learning disability or any other developmental challenge.
d) Score 1 if any child in the family has mental health or behaviour problems not related to a physical disability or developmental delay. Examples include ADHD, ADD, a DSM diagnosis, receiving mental health treatment, special education placement due to behaviour, or use of psychotropic medication.
Section 2 Ontario Family Risk Assessment: Tool Page 34
ONTARIO FAMILY RISK ASSESSMENT Agency____________________________
Family Name: _____________________________________________________Date of Assessment: ___/_____/________ Primary Parent/Caregiver________________________ Secondary Parent/Caregiver_______________________________ Worker Name: ________________________________
NEGLECT Score ABUSE Score
Current Complaint is for Neglect A1. Current Complaint is for Abuse a.No
b.Yes 0 1 ____ a.b. No Yes 0 1 ____
N2. Number of Prior Child Protection Investigations
(assign highest score that applies) A2. Number of Previous Child Abuse Investigations (number:_____) a.None
b.One or more, abuse only c.One or two for neglect d.Three or more for neglect
0 1 2 3 ____ a. None b. One
c. Two or more (Actual number ___)
0 1 2
____ N3. Family Has Previously Received CAS Ongoing
Child Protection Services (voluntary/ court-ordered)
A3. Family has Previously Received CAS Ongoing Child Protection Services (voluntary/ court-ordered) a.No
b.Yes 0 1 ____ a.b. No Yes 0 1 ____
N4. Number of Children Involved in Current Child
Abuse/Neglect Incident A4. Prior Injury to a Child Resulting from Child Abuse/Neglect a.One, two or three
b.Four or more 0 1 ____ a.b. No Yes 0 1 ____
N5. Age of Youngest Child in the Family A5. Primary Parent/Caregiver’s Assessment of Incident (check applicable items, add for score) Max.score 3. a.Two or older
b.Under two 0 1
____
a. ___Not applicable b. ___Blames child
c. ___Justifies maltreatment of a child 0 1 2 ____ N6. Primary Parent/Caregiver Provides Physical
Care Inconsistent with Child’s Needs A6. Partner/Adult Conflict in the Family in the Past Year a.No
b.Yes 0 1 ____ a.b. No Yes (Number of Incidents __) 0 2 ____ N7. Primary Parent/Caregiver has a Past or
Current Mental Health Problem A7. Primary Parent/Caregiver Characteristics (check applicable items, add for score) Maximum score 3. a.No
b.Yes 0 1
____
a. __ Not applicable
b. __ Provides insufficient emotional/ psychological support
c. __ Employs excessive/ inappropriate discipline
d. __ Employs overly controlling/abusive or overly restrictive behaviour.
0 1 1 1
____ N8. Primary Parent/Caregiver Has Historic or
Current Alcohol, Drug or Substance Problem. (Check applicable items and add for score) Maximum score 2.
A8. Primary Parent/Caregiver has a History of Abuse or Neglect as a Child
a.___Not applicable
b.___Alcohol (current or historic) c.___Drug (current or historic)
0 1 1 ____ a. No b. Yes 0 1 ____ N9. Characteristics of Children in Family (Check
applicable items and add for score) Maximum score 3
A9. Secondary Parent/Caregiver Has Past or Current Alcohol , Drug or Substance Problem
a. ___Not applicable
b. ___Medically fragile/ failure to thrive c. ___Developmental or physical
disability
d. ___Positive toxicology screen at birth 0 1 1 1 ____ a. No
b. Yes, alcohol and/or drug: __Alcohol __Drug 0 1 ____ N10 Housing (check applicable item). Maximum score 2. A10 Characteristics of Children in the Family (check
appropriate items & add for score) Maximum score 3.
a.___Not applicable
b.___Current housing is physically unsafe c. ___Homeless at time of investigation
0 1 2
____
a. ___Not applicable
b. ___Criminal or acting out behaviour c. ___Developmental disability
d. ___Mental health/ behavioural problem 0 1 1 1 ____ TOTAL NEGLECT RISK SCORE
